Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Seaford Heights Development SEAFORD HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council SEAFORD HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:46): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question regarding the Seaford Heights development and the Willunga Basin. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Two Sundays ago, there was a very large attendance of primarily local people who rallied and convoyed to the Paxton winery adjacent to the Seaford Heights development land, loudly protesting about the fact that they do not believe they are being heard by the government. My questions are: 1.	Given the concerns that the community continues to highlight appear to be falling on deaf ears, will the minister agree to a moratorium on the further development of stages 2 and 3? That is, advise the house they are looking at approving one single plan of 77 hectares, whereas we were advised that it was a staged development, with only stage 1 being in any possible contractual situation with the developer. 2.	When will the minister meet with Mr Dudley Brown, the chair of the Grape, Wine and Tourism Association, to discuss the concerns of over 500 grape growers, as has been requested—and to this point, I am advised, you have not had time or been available to meet, minister? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:47): In relation to the latter question, I met Dudley Brown last week; I think it was last Thursday. So, I have, in fact, had time to meet him. He did actually come in for a meeting here at Parliament House on the day we were discussing the budget and, unfortunately, because I was dealing with matters in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) debate on that Thursday, or the day we dealt with it two or three weeks ago, I was unable to attend the meeting with other ministers, but I did arrange for Mr Brown to come into my office last week, and he did so. It was a very useful meeting also with the member for Mawson and Jim Hullick, another former head of the Local Government Association and a person with a strong interest in that region. So, I have had that meeting. In relation to the staging issue, as Minister for Urban Development and Planning, it is my role to have jurisdiction over the development plan amendment for the area. The staging of development or how that progresses really is a matter for the developer. As I say, as I understand it, Fairmont Homes has entered into some agreement with the Land Management Corporation into what the future use of that land might be. Any jurisdiction that I have, if and when I formally take over the development plan amendment, will simply be to oversee the rezoning of the 77 hectares of land at Seaford Heights. What happens in relation to the development is really not a matter for me. Obviously, it is a matter for the developers, and that is a question I would have to refer to the appropriate minister because, as I said, I have no jurisdiction over what will happen, other than the planning stage of it. I noticed in the Sunday Mail, a week and a half back, that the letter of the week was given to one of the honourable member's colleagues, Bob Day. Bob Day, in that particular article in the Sunday Mail, widely criticised the LMC for not making enough land available. His comments were that housing in this state was too expensive because the LMC and other bodies were not making land available at the right price for the community. I think the honourable member should talk to his colleague in Family First and work out exactly what their views are on this matter. How can you have it both ways? On the one hand, the letter of the week from the prominent Senate candidate for Family First is arguing that there should be more land put on the market to keep housing cheap, and then on the other hand the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is arguing that we should put a moratorium on developments. I think there is a little bit of inconsistency there.